Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Dont get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. Its just common sense.

I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they dont have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to People have a right to live as they choose, they dont have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Dont use it. Say were against redefining marriage or in favor or marriage as the union of husband and wife NEVER banning same-sex marriage.

II. MAIN MESSAGE THE 3X5 CARD.

 Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.

 We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we dont have it in our face every day for the next ten years.

 Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

 Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanityeither mothers or fathersare dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Lets not confuse them further.

 Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they dont have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

III. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Are you a bigot? Why do you want to take away peoples rights? Isnt it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?

A: Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think thats pretty offensive, dont you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isnt new; its not taking away anyones rights. Its common sense.

2. Isnt the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women dont get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone. Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your motheror your father.

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? Isnt DOMA enough?

A: Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we dont have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.

A: Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, thats who. That is just not right.

A: If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.

Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.

When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.

One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. Thats not right.

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: Love is a great thing. But marriage isnt just any kind of love; its the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.

6. What about benefits? Dont gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?

If the reports out today are to be believed, the party nominating Obamugabe will take an official position of wanting to force everyone in America to celebrate sodomy.

The National Organization for Marriage is out defending the true definition of the word...and these are THEIR "talking points".

Rather than bludgeon people with rhetoric that will repulse them, we need to communicate to them in a way they will accept...so that when the decisions are made at the ballot box, people will choose wisely.

Please consider the above materials as you debate or discuss with friends, family, and neighbors.

You want to see the newest attack. NBC ran a promo for their new fall show “The New Norm” or something like that. Luckily we DVR everything before our kids watch not just because of the slew of loser shows, but the commercials and promos too (even the Olympics).

A new show about 2 sodomites having a baby via surrogate or some f’ed up message like that, same idiot that makes GLEE does it.

Both you, and the original poster, here, suggest arguments that may indeed embarrass an obnoxious agitator; but they do not really cut to the quick. They will not really convert those who have embraced the insane propaganda of the organized Left, that has led to this debate, in the first place.

A really effective argument starts with the basic, functional reality. The reality, here, is the function of marriage, throughout history, as the means for sanctifying human procreation in a multi-generational family structure (family being the essential building block of any ongoing social order).

When you encounter what I call "Cloud Dancing," that is the Leftist efforts to force their fantasy wish lists on others, you can absolutely destroy their argument, by identifying the realities that they ignore--starting, always with the most obvious & most critical. (For further development of this, applicable to this issue, see the final segment of Cloud Dancing Revisited.)

The problem with having too complex an argument, when what you are confronting is fantasy, is that you do not clearly drive home the most essential points. You leave the foe with the impression that you merely have some points in your favor, rather than the reality that he has no rational argument, whatsoever.

Q: Why shouldn't society recognize same-sex marriages in the same way it recognizes traditional marriages?

A: Because there is no anthropological basis for the sanction of marriage between two parties of the same sex, who cannot, without considerable intervention from at least one or possibly more third parties, assist in propagating said society. Marriage was a societal institution before it was a legal one; its primary purpose was (and still is) to provide a mechanism for the continuation of society through the procreation and rearing of children. Society not only needs, but has an interest in fostering and protecting marriage between parties of differing sex; however, society neither needs nor has an interest in bestowing the same sanction upon same-sex couples.

To the extent society accords any rights or privileges to the parties in traditional marriage, said rights and privileges are extended primarily for the ultimate benefit of the children of said marriage. Inasmuch as the number of same-sex unions that will actually produce children is vanishingly small, there is no compelling need for society to extend the same considerations to same-sex unions.

The homosexual community is one of the most creative, artistic and dynamic. They can easily create their own term that celebrates and promotes homosexual unions. Have two terms, one for men, one for women.

Why would they want the stuffy, old, outdated term of marriage?

13
posted on 07/30/2012 3:25:09 PM PDT
by Erik Latranyi
(When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)

Whenever I enter the discussion, I put the lefties on defense, not myself.

Absolutely!! That is by far the first and formost important thing. They have to convince you, not the other way around. They will always try to manuver you into a position where you have to try to convince them of something. Calling you a bigot or whatever is just a variation on that theme, because you end up having to try to convince them that you're not. Never let them get away with it.

14
posted on 07/30/2012 6:51:14 PM PDT
by NurdlyPeon
(It's down to 'anybody but Obama'. And God forgive me for what I must do in November.)

9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

The answer is: I don't have to show that heterosexual couples always produce children, I just have to show that homosexual couples never produce children. And that's just simple biology. Game-set-match.

When they start taking about 'equality', explain to them that you are all in favor treating two equal things as being equal, but not two things that are not equal (for the reason stated above).

Then, explain to them that people are equal, but relationships are not always equal. Ever heard of the term doctor-patient privilege? Priest-penitant privilege? Attorney-client privilege? Spousal privilege? These are defined, privileged relationships. They are not "rights". If they want to call themselves "married", that's their business, but I (society) am under no obligation to recognize it as such. Anything that puts an obligation on someone else is not a "right". If your right to speak is contingent on my obligation to listen, then you have no right to speak.

15
posted on 07/30/2012 7:26:32 PM PDT
by NurdlyPeon
(It's down to 'anybody but Obama'. And God forgive me for what I must do in November.))

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.